Joint presentation about the mFN technology and HFC architecture evolution. NCTA Cable Show, 1999

1. HFC Architecture In The Making
Oleh Sniezko, Tony Werner, Doug Combs
and Esteban Sandino
AT&T Broadband & Internet Services
Xiaolin Lu, Ted Darcie, Alan Gnauck, Sheryl Woodward
Bhavesh Desai and Xiaoxin Qiu
AT&T Labs
Rob Mclaughlin
AT&T Broadband Services Engineering
XL 6/11/99

2. What is this?
 The first joint presentation (AT& Labs
and AT&T Broadband – former TCI) on
NCTA Cable Show 1999
 The invention and evolution of the mini
Fiber Node (mFN – Lightwire and later
OXiom) technology
 At that time an extensive field trial was going on in Salt
Lake City
 And why we do this
XL 6/11/99

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Adel Saleh
ABIS ABSE
(former A-Laber) Patrick O’Hare Mark Dzuban
Larry Cox Cameron Gough
Tim Peters
Marty Davidson
Sam Barney
Bill Scheffler
Quasar, Inc
Bogdan Lomnicki
XL 6/11/99

4. HFC IN THE MAKING
SH
FN
Primary
SH
Hub
FN
SH
 Segmentation  FSS
 DWDM  Node Splitting  DWDM
 SONET
 Ring-In-Ring  BDR
DOCSIS Modem
XL 6/11/99

5. CHALLENGES
 Bandwidth Demands
 Take rate and multiple lines
 New services (streaming)
 User behavior (always-on, SOHO)
 Operation Savings Network
 Sweep Evolution
 Maintenance
 Powering
 Performance
 Reliability
 QoS
XL 6/11/99

6. ARCHITECTURES
Tree-and-Branch
 Broadcast FN
 Cascaded
???
Cell-Based
 Narrowcast RN
 Clustered
XL 6/11/99

7. FIBER OPTICS ?
Node 2,000+HP 1,200HP 600HP 200HP 100HP
Size
HOW Deep ?
HOW To ?
XL 6/11/99

8. Initial Mini-Fiber Node Architecture
Mini-
FN
HE mFN mFN
Local Signaling
for MAC
New Services
Analog video
5 50 550 1G
 Fiber to mFN For Digital Overlay
 550/750 - 1000 MHz Two-Way per 50 HHPs
Two-
 Low-Power-
Low-Power-Consumption Digital Path
 Simple Protocol and Terminals
XL 6/11/99

9. Initial Mini-Fiber Node Architecture
Mini-
FN
HE mFN mFN
XL 6/11/99

10. Initial Mini-Fiber Node Architecture
Mini-
FN
HE mFN mFN
XL 6/11/99

11. SIX MONTH STUDY
completed 3/99
Define Network Upgrade Strategy to Balance
Near-
Near-term and Long-term Needs
Long-
 Network Design and Cost Analysis:
 600+ miles, multiple scenarios
 Key Results:
 Incremental cost with deep fiber penetration
 Opportunities in:
 Reducing power consumption for 2-way services
 Reducing terminal and operation cost
 Ability to support future demands
 Opportunities to Improve Current System
While Migrating to New Infrastructure
XL 6/11/99

12. MULTIPLEXED FIBER PASSIVE COAX
XL 6/11/99

13. LightWire TM
HUB MuxNode
mFN
mFN
Existing/reduced New fiber along coax branch
 Passive coax between mFN and subscribers
 Reduced actives, power consumption, and maintenance
 MuxNode to reduce cost of deep fiber penetration
 Multi-dimension Multiplexing/demultiplexing
XL 6/11/99

14. TM
LightWire
HUB MuxNode
TV New IP
DTV
DOCSIS
New IP New IP
New IP
Analog & TSD
Digital TV Today
10 50 550 750 1G
 Increased bandwidth and flexibility for DOCSIS-based services
 Simultaneously support current & future (new IP) systems
XL 6/11/99

15. MIGRATION
Phase 1:
 Establish A New Infrastructure
 Reduce actives and system power consumption
 Create more bandwidth for DOCSIS-based services
 Improve reliability
Phase 2:
 Future Proofing
 More capacity & flexibility (10-100Mbps/50-100 HHP)
 Low-cost, low-power-consumption user terminals
 Provisioning for future opportunities
XL 6/11/99

16. PLATFORM COMPARISON
HUB MuxNode mFN
B Mux/Demx
Phase / MAC
1 R RFI
Data
AM-VSB DTV
AM- Voice
5 5 550 750 1G
RF End-to-End
B
Phase /
MAC
2 R
Mux/
Demx
RFI
Current Services
1G 100 750 1G
 MAC Demarc
Digital Baseband
 RF Demarc
XL 6/11/99

17. AN INTEGRATED PLATFORM
-- Option #1
PH SH MuxNode mFN
TV XTR
RCV-A
D D
TSD ITU-A W W
XTR
Today RCV-A D
D Filter RCV
M M ITU-A 1:8 Coupler XTRV Modem
RCV-D
New RCV-D DWDM C ITU-D Mux
IP C RCV-D Demux Phase 2
ITU-D DWDM
ITU-A: Analog ITU
ITU-D: Digital ITU
RCV-A: Analog RCV
RCV-D: Digital RCV
 Integrated Platform with Phased Development
 Off-the-shelf for Phase 1 with Phase 2 provisioning
XL 6/11/99

18. AN INTEGRATED PLATFORM
-- Option #2
PH SH MuxNode mFN
TV XTR
RCV-A
D D
TSD ITU-A W W
XTR
Today RCV-A D
D Filter RCV
M M ITU-A 1:8 Coupler XTRV Modem
RCV-D
New RCV-D DWDM C ITU-D Mux
IP C RCV-D Demux Phase 2
ITU-D DWDM
ITU-A: Analog ITU
ITU-D: Digital ITU
RCV-A: Analog RCV
RCV-D: Digital RCV
 Integrated Platform with Phased Development
 Off-the-shelf for Phase 1 with Phase 2 provisioning
XL 6/11/99

19. MUXNODE PLATFORM
1:8
RCV
ITU-A 1:8 XTRV
ASK Dem
ITU-D
Mux
RCV-D Demux
 Multi-dimension (RF, optical, and digital) mux/demux
XL 6/11/99

20. mFN PLATFORM
RCV
Standard
Fiber Node D
D
Platform
XTR-A
RCV-D
Phase 2 FSK ASK FSK
HPF
HPF
Add-on Mod Mod Demod HPF
FPGA
HPF
 GaAs high-gain amplifiers for maximum mFN coverage
 Phase 2: RF and MAC demarcation
XL 6/11/99

21. ADVANTAGES
 Operation Savings
 61% reduction in active components
 Reduced power consumption
 Simplification of maintenance
 Improved Performance
 Reduced ingress noise funneling (10-48MHz operation)
 Increased RF bandwidth
 Improved reliability
 Future Proof
 Flexibility between current track and future opportunities
 Improved QoS and potential terminal cost reduction
XL 6/11/99

22. OPERATION SAVINGS
 Current Network: 5.5 actives/mile
XL 6/11/99

23. OPERATION SAVINGS
 61% reduction in active components
 21+% improvement in reliability
XL 6/11/99

24. COST AND SAVING
Potential Saving:
250
200
 Mitigates Future Node
Capital Cost/HHP
Splitting
150
 Customer Satisfaction
100  $11/HHP/year Operating
Saving:
50  $5 - 8/HHP Sweep
 $1 - 2/HHP Powering
0  $1/HHP Service call
Current MFPC  $1/HHP Customer call
Fiber Optics mFN Amplifier
Reverse Sw eep Passive  $1/HHP Credit/churn
Pow er Supply Engineering Taxes
 Potential Terminal Cost
 $40/HHP Incremental Cost Reduction
XL 6/11/99

25. DELAY COMPARISON
1000
100
Average delay (ms)
10 mFN-NAD
CM
1
0.1
mFN-NAD Cable modem
0.01
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of active users
XL 6/11/99

26. PRIORITY PROVISIONING
Low (20)
Medium (10)
High (20)
50
40
Utilization (%)
30 150Kbps
240Kbps
20 100Kbps
10
0
26 51 77 102 128 154 179 205 230 256 282 307
Request Packet Rate (Kbps/station)
26
XL 6/11/99

27. BOUNDED DELAY
6
Average Delay (ms)
5 Low Priority (20)
4
3 Medium Priority (10)
2
1
High Priority (20)
0
100 200 300
Request Packet Rate (Kbps/station)
XL 6/11/99

28. Field Trial
 Objective:
 Support planned upgrade: bandwidth expansion
 Test technology, verify cost & operation saving
 Trial Scope:
 520 miles (66,619 HHP) in Salt Lake Metro
 Phased development and implementation
 Schedule:
 Service launching: October, 1999
 Data collection: January, 2000
XL 6/11/99

29. PROJECT SCOPE
 Design Optimization
 Maximize the number of amplifiers replaced per mFN
 Minimize overall network power consumption
 Define design limiting factors
 Investigate MDU compatibility
 Equipment Development:
 Technology feasibility
 Cost and time to market
 Implementation and Data Collection
 Front-end labor cost
 Baseline and new data (service call, number of failures,
MTTR, etc)
 Change in sweeping and certification due to the new
architecture
XL 6/11/99

30. CURRENT STATUS
 Vendor Selection: 4/29/99
 Trial Area Selection: 4/29/99
 Design Guideline: 5/3/99
 Project Scope Documentation: 5/7/99
 First Unit Delivery: 6/16/99
 Installation: 6/22/99
 Service Launching 10/99
 Data Collection/Proposition 1/2000
XL 6/11/99

31. We’ll see
XL 6/11/99